News Source: Web MD
Drug Abuse Strikes 1 in 10 Americans
Vast Majority Don't Get Treatment for Drug Use Disorders
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
May 7, 2007 -- Ten percent of U.S. adults have abused drugs or become physically dependent on drugs, a new study shows.
The study, published in May's edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry, focuses on drugs other than nicotine or alcohol.
"Drug use disorders continue to be a widespread and substantial public health problem in the United States," write the researchers, who included Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
The data came from nearly 44,000 civilian U.S. adults who were interviewed in person between 2001 and 2002.
The results show that 7.7% of participants had ever abused drugs and 2.6% had ever been physically dependent on drugs.
Drug use disorders were particularly common among men, people 18-44 years old, people with low incomes, and Native Americans. Mental disorders and emotional instability often accompanied drug use disorders.
On average, people were nearly 20 years old when they began abusing drugs and nearly two years older when they became physically dependent on drugs.
Most never got treatment. Only 8% of drug abusers and 38% of people physically dependent on drugs ever received treatment for their drug problem, the study shows.
"Drug abuse and dependence are prevalent, highly disabling disorders than often go untreated," the researchers conclude.
SOURCES: Compton, W. Archives of General Psychiatry, May 2007; vol 64: pp 566-576. News release, JAMA/Archives.
© 2007 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.
The WebMD news report above seems to be based off a study published in Archives of General Psychiatry (a publication of the
American Medical Association [AMA]): Let me please present some introductory information for my fellow laymen and women regarding
The American Medical Association [AMA]) -- provided by US History Encyclopedia:
American Medical Association
American Medical Association (AMA) was founded on 7 May 1847 as a response to the growing demands for reforms in medical education and practice. Dr. Nathan S. Davis (1817–1904), a delegate from the New York State Medical Society who later came to be known as the "founding father of the AMA," convened a national conference of physicians to address reforms in medical education, medical ethics, and public health. On 7 May 1847 more than 250 physicians from more than forty medical societies and twenty-eight medical colleges assembled in the Great Hall of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and established the American Medical Association. A Committee on Medical Education was appointed, and minimum standards of medical education were established. The first national code of American medical ethics, the cornerstone of professional self-regulation, was adopted. Written by Dr. John Bell (1796–1872) and Dr. Isaac Hays (1796–1879) and published in 1847, the Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association provided guidelines for the behavior of physicians with respect to patients, society, and other medical professionals.
Throughout the nineteenth century the AMA worked to expose fraudulent and unethical practitioners and to limit licensure to allopathic physicians. In 1883 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was established with Nathan Davis as the first editor. By 1901, JAMA was reporting a circulation of 22,049 copies per week, the largest of all medical journals in the world.
Membership, however, remained small, including only 10,000 of the 100,000 orthodox physicians. In 1901 the AMA underwent a major reorganization to become a more effective national body by providing proportional representation among state medical societies. The House of Delegates was established as the legislative body of the AMA. Each state society was allowed a specific number of delegates with voting rights. By 1906, membership in the AMA exceeded 50,000 physicians, and educational and licensing reforms began to take hold.
The newly established Council on Medical Education inspected 160 medical schools (1906–1907), and in 1910 the Flexner Report, Medical Education in the United States and Canada, was published. Funded by the Carnegie Foundation and supported by the AMA, the report exposed the poor conditions of many schools and recommended implementing rigorous standards of medical training. By 1923 the AMA had adopted standards for medical specialty training, and in 1927 the association published a list of hospitals approved for residency training.
By World War I, the AMA had become a powerful political lobby. Wary of governmental control, it fought proposals for national health insurance. The 1935 Social Security Act passed without compulsory health insurance due to AMA influence. Physician membership grew steadily to over 100,000 physicians by 1936. The AMA continued to fight government involvement in health care with a campaign against President Truman's initiatives in 1948. In 1961 the American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC) was formed to represent physicians' and patients' interests in health care legislation.
The AMA continued to work on numerous public health initiatives, including declaring alcoholism to be an illness (1956), recommending nationwide polio vaccinations (1960), and adopting a report on the hazards of cigarette smoking (1964). AMA membership exceeded 200,000 physicians by 1965. From 1966 to 1973, the AMA coordinated the Volunteer Physicians in Vietnam program and in 1978 supported state legislation mandating use of seat belts for infants and children.
In 1983, membership included 250,000 physicians. As AIDS became an epidemic in the 1980s, the AMA passed a resolution opposing acts of discrimination against AIDS patients (1986) and established the office of HIV/AIDS (1988).
By 1990, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and other third-party payers were involved extensively in health care delivery. Health care reform had become a political priority. In 1994 and 1995 the AMA drafted two Patient Protection Acts, and in 1998 the AMA supported the Patient's Bill of Rights.
In 2001, AMA membership included 300,000 physicians. As new threats to the nation's health, such as bioterrorism, began to emerge in the twenty-first century, the AMA continued to rely on the principles in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics (revised 2001) and the democratic process of the AMA House of Delegates to guide its actions and policies to fulfill its mission as "physicians dedicated to the health of America."
Bibliography
Baker, Robert B., et al. The American Medical Ethics Revolution: How the AMA's Code of Ethics Has Transformed Physicians' Relationships to Patients, Professionals, and Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Duffy, John. From Humors to Medical Science: A History of American Medicine. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry. New York: Basic Books, 1982.
Stevens, Rosemary. American Medicine and the Public Interest: A History of Specialization. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998.
Edit: here is the abstract from which the WebMD article seemed to based off of:
Vol. 64 No. 5, May 2007
Original Article
Prevalence, Correlates, Disability, and Comorbidity of DSM-IV Drug Abuse and Dependence in the United States
Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions
Wilson M. Compton, MD, MPE; Yonette F. Thomas, PhD; Frederick S. Stinson, PhD; Bridget F. Grant, PhD, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:566-576.
Background Current and comprehensive information on the epidemiology of DSM-IV 12-month and lifetime drug use disorders in the United States has not been available.
Objectives To present detailed information on drug abuse and dependence prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity with other Axis I and II disorders.
Design, Setting, and Participants Face-to-face interviews using the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in a large representative sample of US adults (N = 43 093).
Main Outcome Measures Twelve-month and lifetime prevalence of drug abuse and dependence and the associated correlates, treatment rates, disability, and comorbidity with other Axis I and II disorders.
Results Prevalences of 12-month and lifetime drug abuse (1.4% and 7.7%, respectively) exceeded rates of drug dependence (0.6% and 2.6%, respectively). Rates of abuse and dependence were generally greater among men, Native Americans, respondents aged 18 to 44 years, those of lower socioeconomic status, those residing in the West, and those who were never married or widowed, separated, or divorced (all P<.05). Associations of drug use disorders with other substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder were diminished but remained strong when we controlled for psychiatric disorders. Dependence associations with most mood disorders and generalized anxiety disorder also remained significant. Lifetime treatment- or help-seeking behavior was uncommon (8.1%, abuse; 37.9%, dependence) and was not associated with sociodemographic characteristics but was associated with psychiatric comorbidity.
Conclusions Most individuals with drug use disorders have never been treated, and treatment disparities exist among those at high risk, despite substantial disability and comorbidity. Comorbidity of drug use disorders with other substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder, as well as dependence with mood disorders and generalized anxiety disorder, appears to be due in part to unique factors underlying each pair of these disorders studied. The persistence of low treatment rates despite the availability of effective treatments indicates the need for vigorous educational efforts for the public and professionals.
Author Affiliations: Division of Epidemiology, Services, and Prevention Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse (Drs Compton and Thomas), and Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Drs Stinson and Grant), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Md.
...however, it seems that the 1 in 10 statistic isn't in the abstract, but rather the full text (and my math shows a slightly different figure than 1/10):
I think this is where the author of the WebMD came up with that statistic:
COMMENT
Vol. 64 No. 5, May 2007
Original Article
Prevalence, Correlates, Disability, and Comorbidity of DSM-IV Drug Abuse and Dependence in the United States
Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions
Wilson M. Compton, MD, MPE; Yonette F. Thomas, PhD; Frederick S. Stinson, PhD; Bridget F. Grant, PhD, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:566-576.
...
Our results indicate that in 2001-2002, 2.0% of adult Americans experienced a drug use disorder in the preceding 12 months (1.4%, abuse; 0.6%, dependence), whereas 10.3% developed a drug use disorder at some time during their lives (7.7%, abuse; 2.6%, dependence). Drug abuse and dependence were associated with significant disability and early onset. Thus, drug use disorders continue to be a widespread and substantial public health problem in the United States.
...
Of note -- however, recently -- a report was published recently in The Lancet that seemed to stir up the consensus on the danger of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco when other of what appear to be more harmful illegal drugs seem to be considered less damaging; first here's the "mainstream" news report as published in the Telegraph:
Alcohol 'is more dangerous than ecstacy'
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 23/03/2007
Alcohol is ranked much more harmful than the Class A drug ecstasy in a controversial new classification system proposed by a team of leading scientists.
The table, published today in The Lancet medical journal, was drawn up by a team of highly respected experts led by Professor David Nutt, from the University of Bristol, and Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.
The authors proposes that drugs should be classified by the amount of harm that they do, rather than the sharp A, B, and C divisions in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.
They say the basis of the Act is ill-defined, opaque, and seemingly arbitrary and overestimates the risks of ecstasy, which kills around ten people annually of the half a million people who use it every weekend, while neglecting those of alcohol, a legal substance which kills more than 300 annually by acute poisoning, and many tens of thousands by road traffic accidents, cirrhosis, gut and heart disease.
In the paper, the team argues that it would make much more sense for drugs to be reclassified on a rational basis that can be updated as new evidence emerges, and more easily than the current rigid category system now in use.
Prof Blakemore added that policies of the past four decades “clearly have not worked”, given the ubiquity and low price of illegal drugs, and that fresh thinking is now required.
Today’s call to overhaul the UK drug classification system, which will be examined by the forthcoming UK Drug Policy Commission, is likely to receive popular public support, according to research into attitudes to drugs by the Academy of Medical Sciences’ DrugsFutures project.
Harmful drugs are currently regulated according to classification systems that purport to relate to the harms and risks of each drug.
However, “these are generally neither specified nor transparent, which reduces confidence in their accuracy and undermines health education messages,” said Prof Blakemore.
“The most striking observation is that there is no statistical correlation between this ranking of harm of drugs and the ABC classification.”
In the new system legal drugs, such as alcohol and nicotine, are ranked alongside illegal drugs.
The new ranking places alcohol and tobacco in the upper half of the league table. These socially accepted drugs were judged more harmful than cannabis, and substantially more dangerous than the Class A drugs LSD, 4-methylthioamphetamine and ecstasy.
“Alcohol is not far behind demonised terrors of the street such as heroin and cocaine,” said Prof Blakemore.
But the conclusions are likely to be ignored, according to coauthor Prof David Nutt from the University of Bristol, who has worked with the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs.
Because some individuals with a particularly genetic make-up are at greater risk, as has been seen with rare deaths connected with ecstasy, ministers have been reluctant to change classifications despite the relative safety for the rest of the population.
Several millennia of human experience with alcohol, its pervasiveness in industrialised cultures, and the US experience with alcohol prohibition (1920–32) make it unlikely that any industrialised society will criminalise alcohol use, he said.
But that still leaves taxation and regulation as methods of control. “Alcohol is a drug we should take very seriously.”
The team identified three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; the tendency of the drug to induce dependence and addiction; the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society
Within each of these categories, they recognized three components, leading to a comprehensive “matrix of harm”.
Expert panels gave scores, from zero to three, for each category of harm for 20 different drugs.
All the scores for each drug were combined to produce an overall estimate of its harm. In order to provide familiar benchmarks, for comparison with illicit drugs, five legal drugs of potential misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) were included in the assessment. The process proved simple, and yielded roughly similar scores for drug harm when used by two separate groups of experts, one of consultant psychiatrists who were on the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ register as specialists in addiction and the second including a range of expertise, from police chief constables to scientists. “The two show very good agreement,” said Prof Nutt.
Cannabis, the subject of much recent debate, was ranked below tobacco, despite the evidence for a link with psychotic episodes in about 7% of schizophrenics. Since the expert panels were asked to assess the harm of drugs in the form that they are currently used, this ranking took account of the widespread use of skunk, which is about twice as potent than traditional cannabis resin.
Other experts still doubt there is a cause and effect relationship between cannabis and psychosis, while a study that claimed genes place some people at particular risk requires confirmation.
Prof Nutt said that young people believe that the establishment lies and distorts the dangers posed by drugs and the only way to restore their confidence is to rely on hard evidence, not arbitrary classifications.
“It is a landmark paper, a real step towards evidence based classification,” commented Prof Leslie Iversen of the University of Oxford, a member of a working group of the Academy of Medical Sciences, though he added that there is still more to be done to take on board new understanding of addiction arising from neuroscience.
The Academy has been asked by the Government to undertake an independent review of the issues raised in the Foresight report ‘DrugsFutures 2025?’ The review will take on board the opinions of many hundreds of people from across the UK who have taken part in face to face discussions and an online debate at www.drugsfutures.org.uk, which is open until end of this month.
Participants are clear that the current classification of drugs is “confusing and inconsistent”. A majority of participants support a health-based approach to drug use and treatment, rather than a law enforcement approach. Many also point out that alcohol is one of the most harmful drugs in common use, to both individuals and wider society.
There appears to be little support for decriminalising drugs however. Professor Sir Gabriel Horn, Chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences group considering the findings of the DrugsFutures project said “The UK Government have asked us to explore the likely future impact of recent developments in science on addiction, drug use and treatments for mental health. We have heard views from both members of the scientific community and of the public which indicate that the current classification system is in need of review.
“Such a review must be underpinned by evidence on the harms of drug use to the individual user, to families and to society, and be considered in the light of the latest evidence from the brain sciences.”
Drug misuse is one of the major social, legal, and public-health challenges in the modern world.
In the UK, the total burden of drug misuse, in terms of health, social, and crime-related costs, has been estimated to be between £10 billion and £16 billion per year.
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
If you examine the chart above, it appears that this recent study found that Amphetamine, Ecstasy, and Cannabis are less dangerous than Alcohol.
Here is the Lancet study abstract from which the story above was based, which is available at PubMed...
However, first -- here is some general information regarding The Lancet that I believe to be accurate as of 7/02/07, from Answers.com -- which, in this case -- seems to be providing information recently available at Wikipedia:
The Lancet is one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, published weekly by Elsevier, part of Reed Elsevier. It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet, as well as an arched window ("to let in light").
The present editor-in-chief is Richard Horton. The Lancet takes a stand on several important medical issues - recent examples include criticism of the World Health Organization, rejecting the efficacy of homeopathy as a therapeutic option and its disapproval of Reed Elsevier's links with the arms industry.
Impact
The Lancet has a significant readership throughout the world with a high impact factor. It publishes original research articles, review articles ("seminars" and "reviews"), editorials, book reviews, correspondences, amidst other regulars such as news features and case reports. The Lancet is considered to be one of the "core" general medical journals, the others being the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal. The Lancet's impact factor is currently ranked #2 among general medical journals.
...
The abstract:
Lancet. 2007 Mar 24;369(9566):1047-53.
Comment in:
Lancet. 2007 Jun 2;369(9576):1856-7; author reply 1857.
Lancet. 2007 Jun 2;369(9576):1856; author reply 1857.
Lancet. 2007 Mar 24;369(9566):972.
Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse.Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C.
Psychopharmacology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. david.j.nutt@bristol.ac.uk
Drug misuse and abuse are major health problems. Harmful drugs are regulated according to classification systems that purport to relate to the harms and risks of each drug. However, the methodology and processes underlying classification systems are generally neither specified nor transparent, which reduces confidence in their accuracy and undermines health education messages. We developed and explored the feasibility of the use of a nine-category matrix of harm, with an expert delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion.We also included five legal drugs of misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) for reference. The process proved practicable, and yielded roughly similar scores and rankings of drug harm when used by two separate groups of experts. The ranking of drugs produced by our assessment of harm differed from those used by current regulatory systems. Our methodology offers a systematic framework and process that could be used by national and international regulatory bodies to assess the harm of current and future drugs of abuse.
PMID: 17382831 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
However, consider this recent news:
First, the mainstream news report:
Heatlh Day: News Source
Third of Americans Have Alcohol Problems at Some Point
Treatment often delayed or not sought, experts say
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
MONDAY, July 2 (HealthDay News) -- More than 30 percent of Americans say they have had problems with alcohol, a new study shows.
Among those with drinking problems, 17.8 percent say they have alcohol abuse problems, and 12.5 percent are alcohol-dependent, according to the report in the July issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.
"At some time in a person's life, 30 percent of the population in the United States will develop alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse," said lead researcher Bridget F. Grant, chief of the Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry at the U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
The hallmarks of alcohol abuse are interpersonal problems, financial problems and problems in daily living due to excessive drinking, Grant said. Alcohol dependence is more serious, she said. "That's where a person has a compulsion to drink as well as impaired control," she explained.
Grant noted that another major finding in the study is that there is an eight- to 10-year delay in treatment for alcohol problems after the problem starts. "That 10 years can be devastating," she said.
In addition, there is a big treatment gap, Grant said. "Only 24 percent of people who had alcohol dependence are ever treated," she said.
There are many new medications and behavioral treatments, Grant said. "But most people, including physicians, don't realize the new state-of-the-art treatment," she said. "Basically, we need a national campaign to educate physicians and lay people that there are treatments out there, and they are effective."
In the study, Grant's team analyzed data on 43,093 U.S. adults. The data were collected from interviews done between 2001 and 2002. In the interviews, people were asked about symptoms of alcohol abuse and dependence and diagnosed for depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorder and other psychiatric problems.
In the year before the interview, 8.5 percent of adults reported having an alcohol use disorder, including 4.7 percent with alcohol abuse and 3.8 percent who were alcohol-dependent, Grant's group found.
In addition, of those who had alcohol dependence during their lifetime, only 24.1 percent were ever treated. Of those who were alcohol-dependent in the year before the study, only 12.1 percent received treatment during that time, the researchers found.
For those with alcohol problems, the prevalence is higher among men and Native Americans, Grant said. "Asians, Hispanics and blacks have a lower prevalence than whites," she added. "Alcohol abuse is greatest among those in the 30- to 60-year-old age range."
While these data remain mostly unchanged over the years, Grant is disappointed that the number of people being treated for alcohol problems remains the same. "More people need to be gotten into treatment and into treatment sooner," she said.
One expert thinks lack of awareness of alcohol problems and treatment options remains a serious problem.
"There is not so much new data here but rather an update on findings that we've known about for some time...," said Dr. James Garbutt, a professor of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina.
Most troubling is that only about 24 percent of those with alcohol dependence receive treatment, Garbutt noted. "The findings speak to the continued lack of adequate awareness and treatment of these disorders and the devastating consequences this has for public health," he said.
Another expert agreed that the gap in treatment is the most serious issue highlighted by the study.
"The most important finding of this study is the lack of progress in improving delivery of treatment to individuals with alcohol-use disorders," said Dr. Adam Bisaga, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and addiction psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, both in New York City.
"This occurs despite significant advances in research describing brain abnormalities contributing to the development and maintenance of alcoholism and availability of several medications and psychotherapies that are effective in reducing burden of these frequently occurring disorders," Bisaga said.
More information
For more information on alcohol abuse, visit the U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/
SOURCES: Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., chief, Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, Md.; James Garbutt, M.D., professor, psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Adam Bisaga, M.D., assistant professor, psychiatry, Columbia University, and addiction psychiatrist, New York State Psychiatric Institute, both in New York City; July 2007, Archives of General Psychiatry
Copyright © 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.healthday.com/
Okay, here is the abstract as published in Arch Gen Psychiatry:
Vol. 64 No. 7, July
Original Article 2007
Prevalence, Correlates, Disability, and Comorbidity of DSM-IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependence in the United States
Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions
Deborah S. Hasin, PhD; Frederick S. Stinson, PhD; Elizabeth Ogburn, MS; Bridget F. Grant, PhD, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:830-842.
Context Epidemiologic information is important to inform etiological research and service delivery planning. However, current information on the epidemiology of alcohol use disorders in the United States is lacking.
Objectives To present nationally representative findings on the prevalence, correlates, psychiatric comorbidity, and treatment of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence.
Design, Setting, and Participants Face-to-face interviews with a representative US adult sample (N = 43 093).
Main Outcome Measures Lifetime and 12-month DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence.
Results Prevalence of lifetime and 12-month alcohol abuse was 17.8% and 4.7%; prevalence of lifetime and 12-month alcohol dependence was 12.5% and 3.8%. Alcohol dependence was significantly more prevalent among men, whites, Native Americans, younger and unmarried adults, and those with lower incomes. Current alcohol abuse was more prevalent among men, whites, and younger and unmarried individuals while lifetime rates were highest among middle-aged Americans. Significant disability was particularly associated with alcohol dependence. Only 24.1% of those with alcohol dependence were ever treated, slightly less than the treatment rate found 10 years earlier. Strong associations between other substance use disorders and alcohol use disorders (odds ratios, 2.0-18.7) were lower but remained strong and significant (odds ratios, 1.8-7.5) when controlling for other comorbidity. Significant associations between mood, anxiety, and personality disorders and alcohol dependence (odds ratios, 2.1-4.8) were reduced in number and magnitude (odds ratios, 1.5-2.0) when controlling for other comorbidity.
Conclusions: Alcohol abuse and dependence remain highly prevalent and disabling. Comorbidity of alcohol dependence with other substance disorders appears due in part to unique factors underlying etiology for each pair of disorders studied while comorbidity of alcohol dependence with mood, anxiety, and personality disorders appears more attributable to factors shared among these other disorders. Persistent low treatment rates given the availability of effective treatments indicate the need for vigorous education efforts for the public and professionals.
Author Affiliations: Mailman School of Public Health (Dr Hasin and Ms Ogburn) and College of Physicians and Surgeons (Dr Hasin), Columbia University, New York, New York; New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York (Dr Hasin and Ms Ogburn); and Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland (Drs Stinson and Grant).
Now here's what I consider to be odd -- consider the fact that medical marijuana is still outlawed in many states in the U.S.
I guess that means that in
some states even if an M.D. prescribes marijuana to their patient -- it seems that that could get both the M.D. and the patient in trouble -- yet the majority of the evidence seems to strongly suggest that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous and cause far more deaths (let's not forget about drunk driving). I am not calling for prohibition of alcohol or tobacco -- if these substances don't require a prescription -- considering how much more deadly they seem to be in comparison to medical marijuana -- something might seem to appear to be off. I guess to balance this out -- the states that still have not accepted medical prescription-only use of marijuana -- might consider requiring their residents to get a prescription for alcohol or tobacco...or maybe every state in the U.S. might consider requiring everyone to get a prescription for alcohol and tobacco? Personally, I do not think a return to the prohibition era is a long term viable solution.
Click here to see some of the evidence to support the medical use of marijuana (and read the whole topic to see which states have already adopted a medical marijuana policy).
Does anyone have any thoughts or comments?
Take care.
Edited by adam_kamil, 03 July 2007 - 12:43 AM.
